PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

District Court of Samoa

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> District Court of Samoa >> 2023 >> [2023] WSDC 3

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Police v Loibl [2023] WSDC 3 (4 May 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Loibl [2023] WSDC 3


Case name:
Police v Loibl


Citation:


Decision date:
4 May 2023


Parties:
POLICE (Informant) v FATA PAUL LOIBL (Defendant)


Hearing date(s):
Hearing: 9th March 2023
Submissions: 12th April 2023


File number(s):



Jurisdiction:
CRIMINAL (District Court)


Place of delivery:
District Court of Samoa, Mulinuu


Judge(s):
Judge Talasa Atoa-Saaga


On appeal from:



Order:
I find the Defendant guilty of the charge of delivering a firearm namely a 12 gauge pump action shotgun registered under his name to Salale Moananu aka Iuli Salale Moananu Salale, a male of Vaitele Fou and Falefa, who is not entitled to possess such firearm without a permit for possession.


Representation:
Senior Sergeant Stanley for Prosecution
P. Fepuleai for the Defendant


Catchwords:



Words and phrases:
“Not entitled to possess firearm without permit of possession” – “Dealers in arms and ammunition to be licensed” – “Permits for possession” – “registration of firearms”.


Legislation cited:
Arms Ordinance 1960, ss. 3; 7; 7(1); 7(2); 7(4); 9; 9(1).


Cases cited:



Summary of decision:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU


BETWEEN:


P O L I C E


Informant


AND:


FATA PAUL LOIBL


Defendant


Representation: Senior Sergeant Stanley for Prosecution

P. Fepuleai for the Defendant


Hearing Date: 9th March 2023
Submissions: 12th April 2023
Decision: 4th May 2023


DECISION

INTRODUCTION

  1. The Defendant has been charged under sections 7(1), (2) and (4) of the Arms Ordinance 1960. The particulars of the charge are:
  2. The Defendant entered a Not Guilty plea to the charge. The Defendant does not dispute that he did leave the firearm registered under his name with Salale Moananu but he has raised Section 9 of the Arms Ordinance 1960 as his defence to the charge.

PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE

  1. The Prosecution called three witnesses Sergeant Junior Afereti and Corporal Tyrone Mamaia and Sergeant Ioane Tavai.
  2. On 2nd July 2022, Sergeant Ioane Tavai and Corporal Tyrone Mamaia responded to a call at the Aquatic Centre at Tuanaimato. They arrived and were told that there was a firearm at the back of a Hilux Pickup Vehicle registered number SSFA 02.
  3. Corporal Mamaia and Sergeant Tavai discovered that there was a 12 gauge firearm at the back of the vehicle. They took the firearm from the vehicle after removing the bullets that were inside the firearm and took the firearm to the office. They did a search and confirmed that the firearm was registered to Fata Paul Loibl. The firearm was surrendered to the Arms Tactical Section
  4. On cross-examination, Sergeant Junior Afereti conceded that Salale Moananu had a license to own firearms.

DEFENCE’S EVIDENCE

  1. Fata Loibl has had a dealer’s license for 8 years. His license has been suspended pending the case.
  2. On the 31st of March 2022, he asked his wife to prepare a cheque for registering his firearm. When he went to register his license, he was informed that he could not register due to SOE restrictions.
  3. On the 1st of July 2022, Salale Moananu picked up Fata from his house. Fata also brought his gun. They had planned to try out Fata’s gun at Salale’s farm at Falefa. On their way to Falefa, Fata received a call from his employee that they needed the key to the storage place at Vaitele. He requested that they return to Vaitele to drop off the key.
  4. When they arrived at Vaitele, there were some Chinese businessmen who expressed an interest to buy one of his properties. He informed Salale to go without him to Falefa. It was only later in the evening when he remembered that he had left his gun in Salale’s vehicle. He called Salale to enquire about his gun.
  5. It was during the Shooting Federation Tournament a few days later that he became aware of the incident involving Salale having the firearm in his possession. Salale Moananu is the Secretary of the Federation.
  6. On cross-examination, he conceded that he did not call Salale to remind him of his gun that he had forgotten at the back of Salale’s vehicle.

SUBMISSIONS

  1. The Prosecution submits that the Defendant knowingly delivered the firearm to Salale Moananu without a license. He left his gun with Salale in his car and allowed Salale to take possession of the firearm without a permit.
  2. Defence Counsel raised a novel argument on behalf of the Defendant. Under section 9(1) of the Arms Ordinance 1960, Salale Moananu only had possession of the firearm for less than 7 days and therefore the Defendant is not liable for delivery of the firearm as the gun was only in the possession of Salale Moananu for less than 7 days.

LAW

  1. There are three key provisions under the Arms Ordinance 1960 that have come under the scrutiny of the Court. These key provisions are Sections 3, 7, and 9 of the Arms Ordinance 1960.
  2. Section 3. Dealers in arms and ammunition to be licensed –
  3. Section 7. Permits for possession –
  4. 9. Registration of firearms
  5. There are different permits under each of these sections. Under Section 3, there is a permit for the sale of firearms and ammunition and this must be paid before the 31st March every year.
  6. Under Section 7, there is a permit for the purchase or possession of a firearm. A person cannot sell or deliver into possession of any person any firearm unless that person that he is delivering the possession of the firearm to is a licensed dealer or a person who has a permit for the purchase or possession of a firearm under Section 7.
  7. Under Section 9, a person must not be in possession of any firearm for a period longer than 7 days unless that person is the owner of the firearm or has a permit issued under Section 9 of the Ordinance. A person must pay a prescribed fee for registration under Section 9. In any prosecution, a person found in possession of the firearm bears the burden of proving that he has a valid certificate as a licensed dealer or that he has not been in possession for more than 7 days, or that he is lawfully in possession under Section 9.
  8. The Defendant has been charged under Section 7(2) for the delivery of the firearm to Salale Moananu. He can only deliver the firearm to Salale Moananu if Salale Moananu is a licensed dealer or a person who has a permit under Section 7. The Defendant has raised Section 9(1) as a defence in that Salale Moananu only had the firearm for less than 7 days therefore he cannot be held liable.
  9. In my respectful view, the Defendant cannot raise Section 9(1) as a defence to Section 7(2). Section 9(1) is a valid defence for a Defendant who has been found in possession of a firearm other than the owner of the firearm. It is a valid defence for Salale Moananu who was found with the firearm in his possession to raise.
  10. As for the Defendant, he had to prove as a defence that Salale Moananu is an arms dealer under Section 3 or that he had a permit under Section 7 of the Ordinance. There is no evidence adduced that Salale Moananu has a dealer’s license or a permit issued under Section 7 for the possession of the firearm in question.

CONCLUSION

  1. I find the Defendant guilty of the charge of delivering a firearm namely a 12 gauge pump action shotgun registered under his name to Salale Moananu aka Iuli Salale Moananu Salale, a male of Vaitele Fou and Falefa, who is not entitled to possess such firearm without a permit for possession.

JUDGE SAAGA
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSDC/2023/3.html